Employers
2
Today · desktop 1280NeoTeams Proof Standard · light
Open searches
7
Outstanding
$11,700
Due now
$2,700
In guarantee
2
Silent 30d+
1
Source: live Supabase
as of 2026-09-17
as of 2026-09-17
Needs attention
2 employers · 7 open issues · oldest first
Outour
Active
3 overdue
-
Overdue 9ddue 2026-09-11BillingPlacement fee unpaid — $2,700, A/P AccountantArsalan Ahmad · invoiced 2026-08-12 · no reply to the first reminder
-
Overdue 5drequested 2026-09-15SearchProperty Manager (second requisition) — no candidate submitted yetRequested by Aamir on 2026-09-15 · source: Gmail thread in ace@umbrellafund.com
-
Overdue 2dpromised 2026-09-18RelationshipInterview feedback promised to Aamir and not yet sentA/R Accountant · Muhammad Usama Khan
-
Due in 4d2026-09-24SearchA/R Accountant — employer interview scheduledMuhammad Usama Khan · confirm panel and brief the candidate
-
Due in 11dguarantee ends 2026-10-01GuaranteePaul Angeles, Property Manager — guarantee window closingCheck-in before the replacement obligation lapses
-
No dateunscheduledSearchAcquisition / cold-calling search is pausedPaused at Aamir's request · no restart date agreed · source: Gmail thread in ace@umbrellafund.com
First Houston Properties
Active
Going quiet
-
88 days silentsince 2026-06-24RelationshipNo contact since the placement fee was wired, and no open searchPaula Abellar placed · $5,400 fee at 25% of first-year salary · invoiced 2026-05-07, wire confirmed by Patrick McKiernan on 2026-06-24 · source: Gmail thread 19e03fe0625c9936
All employers
2 records · including those with nothing open| Employer | Status | Owner | Open searches | Outstanding | Last contact | Next follow-up |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Outour | Active | AB | 4 | $11,700 | 2026-09-15 | 2026-09-22 |
| First Houston Properties | Active | AB | 0 | $0 | 2026-06-24 | None set |
Who it serves
Only the roles this screen actually affects today. Employers is role-based; it is never organised around a named person.
Relationship owner / operator
Today that is AB.
Goal. Keep every employer relationship in good standing and never be the reason something stalls: a promise unkept, a search with no movement, an invoice unchased, a guarantee running out quietly.
Context. Opens this screen first thing and between calls. Works from a phone as often as a desk. Carries the whole book of business in their head today, which stops working the moment there is more than a handful of employers.
Permissions. Full relationship, search, billing, and guarantee visibility across every employer they own.
Success. They can answer "what do I owe anyone today, and in what order" in under ten seconds, act on the first three items without leaving the screen, and finish the day with nothing overdue that they did not consciously choose to leave.
Principal / oversight
Today that is Ace.
Goal. See whether the book is being run well without asking anyone, and catch an employer going quiet or a fee going uncollected before it costs money.
Context. Visits occasionally, not daily. Needs the same screen to read correctly on a phone with no explanation.
Permissions. Sees everything, owns nothing day to day.
Success. One glance tells them how much is overdue, which relationships are cooling, and whether the numbers came from the live system or from something stale.
Restricted internal user
A future coordinator or sourcer.
Goal. Work their searches and relationship tasks without being exposed to commercial terms.
Context. Access is fail-closed; nothing is visible until it is granted.
Permissions. Relationship and search work; no billing amounts or invoice records.
Success. Their queue is still complete and still honest — a billing issue is counted and labelled restricted rather than silently removed, so they never believe an employer is clear when it is not.
Not served by this screen
Candidates and employers themselves never see this surface. Deep search work, invoice work, and guarantee work belong to Searches, Billing, and Guarantees; Employers points at them and stops there.
Walkthrough
One realistic pass for the operator, then the materially different path for a restricted user, then the states that are easy to get wrong.
1 · The operator's morning (desktop)
- Opens Employers. The portfolio strip is one quiet line of context — 2 employers, 7 open searches, $11,700 outstanding, $2,700 due now. It is deliberately small. It is not the point of the screen.
- Reads the queue, not a directory. Two employers need attention, Outour first because it carries three overdue items. Every open issue sits inside its employer, ordered overdue, then due soon, then undated, each tagged Relationship, Search, Billing, or Guarantee. Nothing is summarised away; a seventh issue is never hidden behind a count.
- Acts on the first item without leaving. The overdue placement fee is a Billing issue, so the row does not try to reproduce an invoice here — it opens the invoice record that owns it.
- Handles the relationship item in place. The promised interview feedback is relationship work, so it stays here: log the contact, add the note, and the row clears from the queue.
- Opens the employer for context. One click on the name opens the lightbox: contacts, the same ordered issues, the four searches with their stages, and the activity trail. Escape closes it and focus returns to the row that opened it.
- Scrolls past the queue only if they want to. All employers is still there underneath — the full directory, including employers with nothing open. It is a reference, not the headline.
- Notices the quiet one. First Houston Properties has no open search and no overdue money, so a generic CRM would call it healthy. Here it is second in the queue because nobody has spoken to them in 88 days since the fee was wired. Silence is the issue.
2 · The same pass on a phone
Identical content, re-laid out: the strip becomes a two-column block, each issue keeps its urgency and its tag on the first line with the detail beneath, the directory becomes stacked labelled rows, and the lightbox goes full-screen with the same Escape and back behaviour. Nothing is dropped for being small — an operator on a phone between meetings is the normal case, not the degraded one. Switch the review to Mobile at the top to see every state at 390 pixels.
3 · The restricted user
A coordinator without billing access sees the same queue with the same count of open issues. The overdue billing row is still listed, still counted, still tagged, and still positioned by its urgency — but the amount and the record are withheld and the row says so. The alternative, hiding it, would quietly tell them an employer is clear when it is not.
4 · The states that are easy to get wrong
| State | What the screen does | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Loading | Skeletons in the shape of the real content; no figure is drawn until it is read. | A zero that turns into $11,700 a second later is a lie the operator has already acted on. |
| Load failed | Every figure reads as a dash with "unavailable, not zero", one plain sentence, a retry, and an error reference. | The failure mode that matters is a calm empty screen that looks like good news. |
| Partial data | The rows that loaded are shown; the part that did not is named and marked unavailable in place. | Losing one source must not blank the working ones. |
| No employers yet | A plain invitation to add the first employer, with no invented sample records. | Production surfaces carry real records only; synthetic data belongs in tests. |
| All clear | A stated all-clear plus the next thing due, not a blank space. | An empty queue should feel earned and verifiable, not broken. |
| Busy portfolio | The same hierarchy at 14 employers; long issue lists collapse per employer with an explicit "show all" that names the true count. | The design has to survive success, and a count must never become the place work goes to hide. |
Review notes
The ambitious band first, then the ordinary repairs, then what is evidence and what is assumption. Plain language only — nothing here is a build instruction.
The 10x band
Four moves, strongest first. Two of them are already visible in the Experience tab; two are deliberately not built into the screen because they need your decision before anyone designs them.
Protect for next
1 · The employer record writes itself
The audacious end state: nobody ever types into this CRM again.
- What changes
- Every fact this review could verify about Outour and First Houston Properties came out of an email thread, not out of the CRM. The CRM is a hand-made copy of the mailbox, which is exactly why it can drift and why reconciling it is still on the open list. Flip the direction: the mailbox becomes the input and the employer record becomes the consequence. Mail to and from an employer files itself against that employer, and the commitments inside it — a shortlist by Friday, payment terms, an interview slot — appear in this queue with their dates already set.
- Why it is disproportionate
- It deletes the work rather than speeding it up. Data entry stops being a task, the record stops drifting from the truth, and the operator's memory stops being the system of record.
- What makes it possible
- NeoTeams already has a dedicated inbound mail address provisioned in this product and already sends from its own domain. The employer history that would seed it already exists in the mailbox.
- Does the plan cover it
- No. The approved direction improves how the record is read; this changes where the record comes from.
- Largest risk
- Filing the wrong thread against the wrong employer, and reading a promise out of an email that was never made. It has to start as something that proposes and asks, never something that silently writes.
- Proof it worked
- A month passes in which no employer fact was typed by hand and no reconciliation pass is needed.
Include now — shown in the Experience
2 · Nothing is on the screen without a source
The smallest move that starts the destination above, and the one that fixes the failure this workstream keeps hitting.
- What changes
- Every issue carries where it came from and when it was last true: this email, this invoice, this note, this date. A figure that could not be read says so instead of appearing as a confident number. The screen states plainly whether it is showing live records.
- Why it is disproportionate
- The recurring defect in this product is not a missing feature, it is a believable wrong number — a snapshot presented as live, a zero that was actually a failed read. Making provenance a visible part of every row makes that class of error impossible to ship quietly.
- What makes it possible
- The notes, tasks, and activity trail that carry the evidence already exist in the data model.
- Does the plan cover it
- Partly. The approved direction requires real data with no fallback; this makes the claim checkable on the screen rather than promised in a document.
- Largest risk
- Clutter. The citation must stay a quiet second line, never a badge on every row.
- Proof it worked
- Any figure on the screen can be traced to its source in one click, and a stale source is visible without asking an engineer.
Include now — shown in the Experience
3 · Track promises, not employers
The spine that makes an ordered queue more than a sort.
- What changes
- The unit of work stops being the employer and becomes the commitment: something owed, by someone, by a date, with a source. A shortlist promised by Friday, a net-15 invoice, a guarantee that ends on a fixed day, a callback agreed on the phone. Relationship, Search, Billing, and Guarantee stop being four disconnected warnings and become four kinds of the same thing, which is why they can be ranked against each other honestly.
- Why it is disproportionate
- It is the difference between a screen that shows status and a screen that runs the business. It is also what makes one operator able to hold thirty employers instead of two.
- What makes it possible
- Searches already carry a stage, a blocker, a next action, and a due date; billing already carries due dates and states; placements already carry a guarantee end date. The pieces exist and are simply not gathered anywhere.
- Does the plan cover it
- It is the mechanism behind the approved queue. Worth naming explicitly so it is not implemented as a sort order on a list.
- Largest risk
- Promises with no date. The design has to give undated commitments a home at the bottom of the employer rather than letting them disappear.
- Proof it worked
- Nothing is ever missed that the operator had not deliberately chosen to leave, and the phrase "zero overdue follow-ups" can never coexist with overdue work again.
Explore — not designed here
4 · Guarantee radar: the money you can still lose
A placement inside its guarantee window is not revenue yet; it is a fee you may have to work twice for.
- What changes
- Every live guarantee is treated as exposure with a countdown, and the screen watches for the signals that a placement is about to fail — a hire who has gone quiet, an employer who stopped answering, a start date that slipped — while there is still time to save it rather than replace it.
- Why it is disproportionate
- In this business the guarantee is the largest uncontrolled risk on the book. Saving one placement is worth more than any amount of screen polish.
- What makes it possible
- Placements already hold a guarantee end date and terms.
- Does the plan cover it
- The approved direction surfaces guarantee issues in the queue. It does not treat exposure as a number the business manages.
- Largest dependency
- Guarantees are still drawn from a hand-maintained snapshot rather than the live database, so any exposure figure would be untrustworthy until that is closed. That closure is already on the workstream's remaining work.
- Proof it worked
- A wobbling placement is caught before the employer raises it.
Also included, and worth naming
Silence is an issue. An employer with no open search and no unpaid invoice looks perfect in a directory. First Houston Properties is exactly that, and it has not been spoken to since the fee was wired on 2026-06-24. In the proposed screen that is the second item in the queue. It is the cheapest revenue in a staffing business and the easiest thing for a status-shaped screen to lose.
Fixes and ordinary improvements
Necessary, not breakthrough. These are the defects in what is deployed today.
Deployed today
- Opens as a generic directory of employers with large headline totals above it.
- A summary can report no overdue follow-ups while overdue search, task, and billing work exists, because only one kind of date is counted.
- The attention panel prints every warning in the same red, in the same weight, with no order and no kind.
- The record lightbox reproduces search, commercial, and guarantee material inside itself.
- There is no working way to get from an employer to the exact search, invoice, or guarantee that owns the problem.
- Filters ask the operator to construct the view they need before they can start.
Proposed
- Opens as a queue of who needs attention; the directory stays, underneath, as reference.
- One definition of overdue across all four kinds of work, so the headline cannot disagree with the rows.
- Every issue carries its urgency, its age, and its kind; red is reserved for genuinely overdue.
- The lightbox keeps relationship work and points at everything else.
- Every issue ends in the exact record that owns it.
- The default view is the answer; filters are for exceptions.
What this is built from
- Real records. Outour and First Houston Properties, their people, and the placement history, from the sourced email record in ace@umbrellafund.com and the corrections already accepted in this workstream — including that James Mashni is the client contact, not the hire.
- Real figures. $23,400 contracted, $11,700 collected, $11,700 outstanding, $2,700 due, from the production readback of 2026-09-17. They are an as-of snapshot, not an evergreen count.
- The deployed screen and the code behind it, inspected directly rather than recalled.
- The approved definition you signed off: role-based command centre, prioritised queue, every issue visible and ordered, healthy employers in a secondary directory, relationship work in the lightbox, exact handoffs out.
Assumptions — do not treat these as fact
- Individual issue due dates, the overdue counts, the guarantee window for Paul Angeles, and every figure shown in the busy-portfolio view are representative. Production does not currently hold those conditions.
- Splitting the outstanding balance so that all of it sits against Outour follows from First Houston having been paid, but it was not read back from the live billing rows.
- Guarantee and command-centre figures anywhere in the product remain snapshot-backed until that migration is done, so any guarantee count is indicative only.
- The restricted-access view assumes a role that does not exist yet; today's only internal user sees everything.
Open product choices — your call, not mine
- Does the queue rank across employers, or only within them? Shown here: employers are ordered by their worst issue, and issues are ordered inside each employer. The alternative is one flat list of every issue in the business, which is faster to work but loses the relationship as the unit. My recommendation is to keep the employer as the unit, because the job is holding relationships, not clearing tickets.
- Should "going quiet" be a real issue, or just a signal? Shown here as a real, dateable issue that sits in the queue. It is the only issue type nobody promised, so it is the one most likely to feel like nagging. My recommendation is to keep it, with a threshold you set per employer rather than a fixed number of days.
- How much of the commercial picture belongs in the lightbox? Shown here: the issue and its handoff, nothing more. If you want the fee and payment history visible without leaving, that is a deliberate widening of the boundary you drew.
- Is the portfolio strip earning its place at two employers? It is deliberately small and could be removed entirely until the book is larger.
What this review does not do
Nothing here has been specified, implemented, deployed, or changed in production. The deployed CRM is untouched. This link is a design review at revision A, and it stops at your approval or correction.